tv [untitled] November 29, 2011 9:00am-9:30am PST
>> hi, commissioners. i am a patron of bistro gambrinus. i have gone there once or twice a week since its inception. we go there for a family dinner. i brought my grandparents therefore their birthdays. it is a very friendly place. we go there because of the food. i think it is the single best, i would call it russian restaurant in the city. it is on rival. i am very happy to go there to eat. i do indulge in the occasional beer. i do not go there for the purpose of getting drunk off of liquor. there are tepee -- tv's. the sound is muted.
there is quiet music in the background. there may be a few games or cnn on the tv, just like any restaurant. one and a half pages of beers and a half a page of food. i think there are six pages of food. there are salads, soups, i do not know how you fit that on two-thirds of a page. this is a full-service restaurant. gaiters to all kinds of different people. they come there to eat and have a good time. there are too many things that just do not add up. >> good afternoon. i am the person who is working
there. a few small things. like someone said before, we are not trying to find a conflict. we always try to talk to these young men and explain what kind of problems we have. he never even wanted to talk to us. he's just ignoring us. if something is going wrong, he should tell us and we can fix it right away. for me, there is no reason to come here because there are no big issues. it is a restaurant. some of the activities going on,
people go in and out. that is normal. i am pretty sure it is possible to find the right way. there is no reason to have a conflict. the people who are not finding the conflict. i am sure it is possible to find the right way to negotiate the problem. that is my personal opinion. thank you. >> good day, commissioners. i am actually a manager at bistro gambrinus. i have been there since day 1.
i helped do the menu including food and beer. i am also of the eastern european descent. i am a patron of other restaurants. i do go out. i like food , like likedbeer. it is one of my passions. it is a very neat place. we have a huge beer menu. we also have a huge food menu. it is not a sports bar. there are only a couple of places in the city that have similar food. we are one of them. i think we add to the
neighborhood. some of the problems they described, we disagree with, but we cannot be held responsible for everything going on in the neighborhood that contains a liquor store and a bus stop and so on. >> are there additional speakers for the project sponsored? >> i am the owner of the restaurant. i want to thank you and the planning commissioners. and my supporters who came to support. that is great. we are working very hard. my goal is to keep the peace and understanding between the neighbors. not a single time to the request your of the d.r. come to me and say here is the problem, let's talk. our goal is to be as we are.
a full-service, eastern european restaurant. we would like to solve the problem peacefully. i would be very happy to talk to anybody including my next-door neighbors. thank you. >> are there any additional speakers in support of the project sponsor. seeing none, project requestor. >> thank you, commissioner, madam president. clearly, there are very respectable people in the room. they seem to patronize and enjoy the restaurant as well. the restaurant doesn't cater to
parties that go on late at night well past closing time. they do generate a high number of drunks and they do make the neighborhood un safe. natalia and i live immediately next door. we are terribly inconvenienced and feel threatened by the people that often stand outside. they have stood in the way of natalia. they stand in my way as i approached the home. i am not as easily intimidated as natalia is. none of this is a fabrication. there are police reports i corroborate this.
i would also welcome the opportunity to talk to the owners of the restaurant. i would like to do it in front of some authority like you. they first moved in. i made an effort to work with sergei. he was parked in front of my driveway. he dumped his garbage in my garbage cans. i asked him not to. he continued to do so even more. his delivery trucks, at random times. they frequently blocked our driveway. i asked him not to allow that to happen. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> as you have heard from representatives throughout the city, this is a respectable
establishment. the most recent ratings of the restaurant was 100. really, i feel for the applicants. this is not the appropriateness avenue for some of the allegations. all of them have been addressed by different departments. bistro gambrinus has been cleared of all of the allegations. these are very difficult economic times for us all. for small businesses. they are doing a phenomenal job. i support you all to support the permit application and 90 d.r. application -- deny the d.r.
application. >> thank you. the public hearing is closed. vice-president miguel: i wish i knew who the building owner or realtor was that are rigidly least the place to the current proprietor's. if they had done their job in an ethical manner, they would have let them know what was necessary to do to open this type of business there. we have no control over that. perhaps with the change in restaurant definitions, which we heard earlier today, some of this will go away. i have been to the restaurant, i have been there, and i have enjoyed a beer there.
this is a situation where if it were german, i would call it a beer stool. if it was english, i would call a pub. they are places you go to eat and enjoy beer. theuy must have 75 beers on their menu, one of the larger selections in san francisco. we are getting more and more places that cater to european beers, the beer's you can get on the west coast of the united states. they have a very extensive menu. at the time i was in there, there were young couples, there were groups of obvious students. the days i was there, the
establishment did not exist. there were very few places to eat at that time. i am really surprised that so many people come from all over the city. i have no idea where they parked. i was lucky and found a parking space within two blocks. it is a very clean, interesting, small restaurant. it is not that big. under 50 people. there are tv's. there are tv's in hotel bars now. that does not make it a sports bar. you are not going to watch a comedy show or a mystery show
because without sound, it is not going to make sense. you watch sports because that is what you can follow on the tv's. as far as people spilling out into the streets, it has got a door. it is not as if the entire front is open to the street. people are going to go outside and smoke. they do wso in every establishment in san francisco. there is no law against it. until there is, it is legal. it is just that simple. i see no problem in taking d.r. and approving the project with conditions because it's operating in exactly the manner
that the code requires. if there are police problems, that is up to the police department to solve and not up to us. i am not seeing anyone bringing in any actions from the police department. i am going to move to take d.r. and approve with conditions. that it can operate as it is currently. >> second. >> i would like to clarify one thing. the restaurant's current hours of operations are 12:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. monday through wednesday. they are not open on sundays. do you still go to a 11:00 p.m.
on sundays? i would like to clarify our new web site, you can say that we can also accommodate large parties of up to 200 people at the banquet hall. that is a different place. are you planning to extend the hours? do you know? >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the project with established conditions as drafted by staff. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. vice-president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. president olague: is there any general public comment on items not on the agenda?
during the proceedings. role call. moore? sugaya? fong? antonini? olague? migue? gwyneth borden is expected. the item on this calendar is 2006.37 i, the academy of arts institutional master plan. >> the item before you is an information item, the academy of arts institutional master plan. this requires a large institution to file a large institutional master plan everything years to detail current facilities and
operations. when the submission has been determined by the planning department, with all information in accordance with the planning code, the planning commission will have a public hearing. this is for the receipt of public testimony in cannot constitute the approval or disapproval. the service three principal purposes. to provide notice and information to the planning commission and other agencies and the -- the general public. and to give the opportunity for these plans prior to the building design and by the institution. and to make modifications to the master plan with the public hearings prior to the more detailed planning. and the new redevelopment proposed in the net -- master
plan, and to provide the neighborhood organizations and the general public that may help to guide their decisions. this is with regard to the use an investment of land and the provision of public services, and particularly the planning of similar institutions to make certain of -- the costly duplication does not occur. this is required to be updated every two years. the public hearing is the third to be held on the academy of arts university. the first hearing was december 6, 2007. at that hearing it was not accepted and the questions and concerns related to the use of property by the academy, with a loss of affordable housing and potential transportation impacts related to the growth of the academy.
the commission has asked that they address these concerns and continued the transportation study. the academy has continued to grow and requires additional facilities. what is before you know is the third draft prepared since last july, the result of a series of meetings and memorandums between the planning department and the project sponsor. this includes the property acquisition and the adoption of free use. the impact on housing and nonresidential and commercial tenants, and the specific potential sites for accommodating most of the five- year space needs. a summary of the violations on academy property and includes the detail transportation studies to a identify the potential impact with implementing the five and 10- year growth plan.
in the executive summary of the third section, it describes how the inp meets each of these items. the first public comment, we have received nine comments -- eight comments, and seven by telephone and one letter that is in the packet. this appears to meet all the requirements of the planning code including the information specifically requested by the commission. the purpose is to inform the public about the institution, the purpose of the hearing is to express concerns, it is expected that this will follow the public,. no action is required by the commission under section 3 04 0.5 e, and closing the public
hearing and the acceptance of this does not mean that the commission approves of this or agrees with any statement or supports any past or future actions of the institution. this item is informational only, represented on behalf of the project sponsor. i am here to answer any questions. >> and thank you. the project sponsor? >> hello. i am here on behalf of the academy of arts university. i just want to begin by saying, i am pleased that we are here, moving forward with the institutional master plan. i think that i just want to thank, the department's staff
for all the work that they have done, leading up to this. we think that this is a challenging effort to put together an institutional master plan that has multiple campuses, multiple does -- disciplinary approaches, and the potential for great growth in the future for san francisco and its own community. we understand the challenges of what this took and we're happy that we have a document that we believe is clear and gives a good picture of where we are and where we are going. i think that -- i do want to say that there is one thing that we disagree with in the staff report. i would comment that this is the first institutional master plan. we believe that if you look back at the december 2007 hearing,
the staff report says that this section was complete, and the hearing did take place in the hearing was closed. i did not want to dwell on that because this is in the past. i am please to go forward and i am pleased that the report today does say that all of those required of the commission is to accept the plan, to determine whether this is complete with section 304.5. now, i understand why there has been some confusion in the past about this. during some of the hearings with regard to the academy of art university, a lot of confusing information was given to the commission. in fact, at one time, it was advised that we could not have
this hearing on the master plan without the eir being completed. but because there is no approval been requested, i am please to say that we are moving forward as well. there is a slight delay but this has picked up again. and we look forward to all the other elements going forward. this is a major step for us to get behind. and i think more importantly, this will be what we need to go forward because in the future, the commission can review the conditional uses, and building permits and any other applications for the future buildings or the existing buildings that will be operated by the academy of arts. this is the appropriate place to determine whether or not the
buildings and facilities being used by the academy are consistent with the planning code, and did not have significant environmental impact. we're all here today to listen to the comments of the commission and the concerns, and president stevens is here to hear your comments. we also have the consultants who appeared with the institutional master plan. we have the other staff that have been working on elements of the master plan, and we have others working on the enforcement activity. we believe we will answer any questions that you may have, but by closing the hearing today, this does not mean that you don't have the opportunity to ask us for additional information. you can still ask us for additional information, but we
want for you to make those calculated tasks of adopting this institutional master plan by accepting this by the end of the day. >> we will open this up for public comment and we have one speaker card. jim lazarus. >> good morning, commissioners. as you have just heard, the purpose of the institutional master plan is to alert the public as to what the institution is doing and the current impact and future plans. the chamber of commerce, in reviewing the document that has been before you before does this. this alerts the community and the city and this commission as to the academy of arts and their current activities and future plans. san francisco, after a ballot
measure directed the development of an economic plan for the city. the plan that came out of the plate -- the mayor's office had a knowledge-based economy and a visitor-based economy. the academy of arts university is a home run on both fronts. this is part of the growing knowledge base of san francisco and its programs bring visitors to the city as well. $211 million of direct economic benefit, from their programs in san francisco. over 2000 full-time and part- time employees -- one of the few employers that have grown jobs in the last four years. i. anderson the frustration of the commission, with the growth of this institution. but i think that we're on track
with your acceptance of the master plan, the involvement of the community and the environmental review process. and the conditional use applications that can follow to bring this institution, an important part of the economy and educational growth in san francisco. the chamber urges you to accept this document before you and to move the issue forward. >> and is there additional public comment on this item? seeing -- >> thank you. i am melissa jo kelly. i have been a resident since 1996. i'm asking you to reject this master plan because i do not believe that this is complete. iam